Brad (not verified) — Sun, 11/16/2008 - 11:19pm

Wow, is this what The Jakarta Post got? Sure this is Opinion, View Point or whatever section you may call it. But don't they (TJP editors) consider some essence and depth of the topic written, not only how interesting it might be?

"And the unfaithful are happy to announce that there are more parents who want their children taught Darwinism."

The statement above sounds out-dated. Writer needs more research before writing such statement. Many scholars have said that "there is no longer the missing link".

To me, this article is lack of depth analysis, too much throw-in-here-and-there loose little facts. Lack of scientific and religious knowledge.

Asti (not verified) — Tue, 09/16/2008 - 10:17pm

You generalize things. You recklessly put the faithful in the irrational polar and the infaithful in the rational one.

If you open your eyes widely, you can see that many leading scientists in Indonesia, those becoming devoted lecturers in universities or noted researchers in research centers, are those you call the faithful.

Okay, they may be not as great as the infaithful scientists in the West, but if you talk with them, if you see the way they think, the way they work, you will find that these people you call faithful and therefore irrational are those using brains maximally to seek the truth; to reveal mysteries in science and to maximize the use of science to benefit human-being.

The only reason why they can't be as popular as their western counterparts is simply because no body supports them; neither the government nor the private sector (have you ever heard that this country treats researches and researchers very poorly; with poor funds allocated to finance their research projects).

If you only open your eyes widely, you will see that science and religion are not two lateral things. It is so unfair judgement that you conclude them to be on opposite sides just because the faithful commonly reject Darwinism (which is still a theory anyway), while they accept most of other science findings.
I can confirm this at least in my own religion, i.e. Islam, as I have no rights to speak on behalf of other religions.

It is also a recklessness that you point your finger at us the faithful as the culprit, whom said attacking the atheists and agnostics for not believing.

Once again if you only open your eyes wider and learn to see things from an objective point of view, you'll find that many faithful are instead objects of hatred and, subsequently, discrimination committed by the unfaithful, especially after the Sept. 11 tragedy.

I can say this because I am, as a Muslim woman using a Muslim attire, have to painfully experience such discrimination frequently. And who have done that to me? I will have to unfortunately say they are mostly the unfaithful, who mock me for my own rational choice to continually be a Muslim and do my religious obligations.

And let me tell you --hope you're quite open-minded to hear -- that the reason why I decided to keep my faith, after long thoughts of turning into an atheist, is because I think the existence of God is more rational and more logic than His inexistence. At least I'm open to discussions over the origin of life and the universe, which many of the unfaithful already closed their minds from.

Iain (not verified) — Mon, 09/15/2008 - 7:45pm

David,

"Every religions or ideologies is free to practice their own faith as long as they don't disturb muslims to practice their own faith in their own community."

Why are Muslims' religious needs above those of other religions? Where is the compassion and consideration when Muslim religious practice happens to disturb another religion's practice?

Was Muhammed only talking about Indonesia?

"Perhaps, the way you see religion and the way Islam see religion are laid in different angle."

Yes, you are right, and I guess this is why there will be an endless number of people contributing to the Jakarta Post telling eveyone how they have misunderstood and misinterpretted Islam.

Oh, doesn't Islam also mean "submission"? I guess that 'angle' didn't suit your argument on this occasion.

"The word Islam is a verbal noun originating from the triliteral root s-l-m, and is derived from the Arabic verb Aslama, which means "to accept, surrender or submit.""
Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islam

Anyway... cheers... or alternatively: Peace! ;-)

John Hargreaves (not verified) — Fri, 09/12/2008 - 7:57pm

Sasla, you have some interesting ideas.

But you present a misleading view that the purpose of spirituality is to discover truth and facilitate understanding of mysteries such as tsunamis and other natural phenomena.

But if we observe religious practices of Indonesians who maintain traditional religions, such as Badui, Torajans and Papuan tribes, neither natural nor metaphysical explanation seems to be central to their religious rituals and activities. Rather, we find a preoccupation with practical and social matters such as the "correct" treatment of the dead, demarcation of boundaries and "sacred space", reaffirmation of social roles, selection of appropriate foodstuffs and their correct preparation etc.

Certainly, traditional religions often involve origin myths and the presence of gods and spirits, but these serve more to provide a background for the practical and social rituals than to provide comfort by supposedly explaining mysteries.

For humans, it is natural to involve ancestors, ghosts and quasi-human gods in our understanding of social affairs because our brains are geared to think far more in terms of human agency and relations than in terms of abstract, scientific concepts.

Of course, evolution has given us the intuitive understanding of basic physics necessary to, for example, throw a rock. But it remains largely subconscious.

Our conscious social interaction, especially our linguistic interaction, has always been dominated by human intrigues, so it is natural that social groups develop myths, stories, explanations of social structure and, ultimately (or simultaneously), explanations of our position in nature, that incorporate quasi-human gods and spirits.

Even today, when we have God the Creator and God the Transcender, the God who most often crops up in everyday discourse is God the Spy, who keeps an eye on our personal daily affairs and decides whether we deserve reward or punishment.

Compared to the long history of religion, science, and some people's fascination with it, has only developed over the last few thousand years, thanks to the invention of writing, technological innovation and ever-increasing social complexity and specialisation.

At the same time modern religions, with their emphasis on sacred texts, elaborate theology and integrated collections of myths, have only developed with the spread of writing, the expansion of empires and specialisation in the provision of religious services.

In today's context, we can see Christianity and Islam as the Starbucks and McDonald's of religious suppliers. Compared to, say, traditional dukuns and ghost stories, they offer standardised messages and rituals in a predictable environment with staff trained to provide services with the same manner and attributes.

The problem of religious leaders, compared to Starbucks chiefs, is that they cannot easily liquidate their assets. And, although the market for their services appears durable, a scent of fraud and exploitation often hangs over them and their doctrines. The result is a more or less disguised paranoia that their customers might desert them in droves the instant that they wake up and smell the lack of coffee.

So it is to be expected that religious leaders and acolytes will engage in fierce social and political rivalry to shut down the competition, to punish apostates and heretics and to impose their dogmas as indispensable to the effective functioning of society.

As one relevant example, consider the issue of food certification.

On one hand, scientists want to certify food as healthy, free from contaminants etc. People can thus select food according to their perceived wish to avoid sickness and malnutrition.

On the other hand, ulemas want to certify food as halal according to traditional rules. People can thus select food according to their perceived wish to act as loyal members of their
religious community, to avoid "spiritual pollution" and so on.

Here, science and religion are not in competition. But all members of society can negotiate to a consensus on scientific standards, whereas in the case of religious standards the costs of certification are borne by everybody, and non-Muslims or non-devout Muslims are forced to subsisdise the community of devout Muslims.

To achieve such privileges, in modern society religious leaders seek to approach the monopoly position held by traditional religions in traditional societies in order to promote their own personal and community status and welfare at the expense of real and potential rival or minority groups.

This does not mean that religious people are insincere or that they are just abusing spirituality as a ticket to power. But it does mean that promoting religion as the basis for identity, morality and social cohesion tends instead to lead to group antagonism, abuse of power, immorality, and eventually, exploitation or social breakdown.

John Hargreaves (not verified) — Wed, 09/10/2008 - 8:22pm

Religious people would cause less suffering if they limited themselves to showing how some religions can help some people to deal with some of their problems at certain points in their lives.

Religion cannot be the solution for all the world's problems and it would be unhelpful for religious people to imagine or pretend that it can.

That is the sort of megalomaniac fantasy that starts them proclaiming how their religion is a "blessing for the universe" and so on. Next they demand that the rest of us have to stop enjoying ourselves for a month so that they can carry out their duty to increase their religious devotion and improve their self-control with greater equanimity. In this way, according to them, we will be able to gratefully enjoy the greater blessings they are going to shower upon us even as they are oppressing us.